There are some words you only really see in newspapers.
You’ve probably just thought of a couple. Things like “romp” for a bout of sexual activity, or “tot” for a child, along with plenty of others. People don’t really talk like that, but the massive headline fonts put limitations on the lengths of words that can fit on the page.
One word not appearing on that list is “tranny”, in the sense of a newspaper-friendly abbreviation of either “transvestite” or “transsexual”. (There’s a colossal difference between the two, which I’ve seen newspapers entirely fail to make before.) [Edit: “Transgender” may also be distinct from “transsexual”, in ways not obviously appreciable to everyone but which might well matter to those people who actually use them.]
Transvestites, transsexuals, and often anyone who crosses the strict gender lines in an unfamiliar way, can still fall under the category of “acceptable targets”. It’s tacitly recognised that it doesn’t really matter how you treat them, or what disparaging terms you use, because it’s all weird and scary and doesn’t deserve compassion or understanding. They’re just weird. Eugh.
Kinda like what was generally accepted about gay people not that long ago. And black people not that long before that.
Incidentally, I wonder whether it’s odd that deviating from the strict, heteronormative gender roles in perhaps the most significant way – having sex with people you wouldn’t traditionally be expected to – has gained such ground in terms of widespread tolerance, while relatively minor aberrations like being a bloke in a dress still attract such publicly acceptable ridicule.
The point is, it’s easy to look at stuff like this and think that it’s a bit of a non-story. She’s being a bit petty, and it’s really not worth getting this bothered about, and she should just let it go, and it’s not that big a deal, and it’s just a silly word.
It’s very easy to dismiss it like that. As easy as it was for previous generations to take the same attitude to fags and negroes, I imagine.
I’m not sure the exact nature of the parallel I should be drawing there. I’m the privileged white guy, and I don’t want to demean the history of black oppression by assuming I understand it well enough to use it as an appropriate comparison. Just how offensive is the word “tranny”? Is it as bad as “faggot”? Or “nigger”?
My guess is, it’s as bad as the people who have it hurled against as a term of abuse are made to feel.
I don’t think I need to recap the fact of violence and abuse toward people whose gender identity is anything other than perfectly straightforward and conventional and in line with the physical form they were born with. It needs active opposition and engagement, and will do for as long as we live in a culture where things like this happen:
A Long Island man fatally beat a 17-month-old infant he was babysitting because the child was acting like a girl, and not like a boy.
…
Authorities say Jones also told them, ‘I was trying to make him act like a boy instead of a little girl. I never struck that kid that hard before.’
A kid less than two years old got beaten to death because of some guy’s idea of how boys and girls “should” behave.
Now, this is an extreme case. If things really occurred as alleged in that article, then this guy’s extensive list of personal problems neither begins nor ends with some old-fashioned ideas about gender.
And I’m certainly not saying that this is where all instances of mild transphobia will inevitably lead. People who scoff at other people’s unfamiliar and unconventional decisions about gender identity are not as bad as child murderers.
But they’re also not helping.
The same attitude lies at the root of much of these problems. And every dismissive “tranny” headline does a little bit to just slightly reinforce the message: “It’s okay, everyone’s taking the piss out of them for being different and weird, they’re not really people, not like us normals, not like you and me – so there’s no need to remember all those things like courtesy and respect and decency and compassion that you have to grit your teeth and go along with for other people.”
I can sympathise with anyone for whom particular care and delicacy on this subject may not come naturally. Nobody was really noticing it until recently, and it might seem unsettling if you’re suddenly being told off for just having a bit of harmless fun with some weirdo. But your grandma might be equally bemused by the way black people don’t do what they’re told any more, and seem to have no respect for their betters these days, not like they used to, when they knew their place.
Whatever’s going on inside someone else’s head that you can’t relate to, they’re still people. And if they don’t mean anyone harm, they deserve better than to be made to feel bad because of careless abuses of language from the rest of us.
Hat-tip to The F-Word Blog for the links.
I’m not entirely certain if you are saying Sex Matters is over-reacting or not. I’m not a fan of political correctness but language can be hurtful and dismissive and I respect Sex Matters for having the courage of their convictions. One person can make a difference: just ask Rosa Parks. People might not mean any harm but behaviour won’t change if no-one’s aware that it is hurtful.
http://thelaughinghousewife.wordpress.com
Hmm, I’d hoped I wasn’t being too ambiguous with my irony here. No, I really don’t think it’s just an overreaction, and I do think there’s a lot of room for taking a more measured and moderated approach to casual language terms that cause offense.
Why do you feel that “tranny” is offensive?
Most likely, this is yet another case of confusing word and intent: If people often use a word with a particular intent (often an intent that is only perceived by others) then the word becomes derogatory over time—even in the face of a neutral use by large groups
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Euphemism_treadmill
Well, I feel that it’s offensive mainly because the people it refers to often report being offended by it. It seems like that ought to be enough.
I agree that intent makes a big difference, and context is key. Not everyone who uses the word “tranny” is doing so cruelly or contributing to oppression, and there’s nothing inherent in the word itself which makes it bad and means that it can never be used in a benevolent or neutral manner.
But it’s worth people being aware that, even if they’re not actively trying to be discriminatory or oppressive, it’s a word with severe connotations for many. However valid or harmless it may have been before sliding along the treadmill, I’d argue that it does harm these days and is a broadly insensitive term to throw about without care.
While you are broadly right, this is just how a euphemism treadmill gets started: People are offended by a particular word, a new word is introduced to replace it, before long the new word is also considered offensive, etc. My personal opinion (others disagree) is that it is often better to keep the old word—and to recognize that it is not the word it self, but the intents behind it, that ultimately matter. (“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.’)
@anubiscaller
As you correctly point out below, “tranny” is not a euphemism; however, that is secondary, because the euphemism treadmill is only one example of a broader phenomenon (cf. the links in the Wikipedia discussion). Notably, “nigger” was not a euphemism either.
Looking at the overall situation, what would the two of you suggest as a replacement? (If nothing else, in order to remove the ambiguity.) “Transsexual” (“-vestite”, “-gendered”) is too long for a headline and does not roll over the tongue like “tranny” does. A shorter word would be prone to rapidly become offensive. I see no good solution, off the top of my head.
I think there’s a fair bit of difference between an context-offensive word like ‘tranny’ and the definition of words that become impolite (not derogatory) over time.
The euphemism treadmill describes words that were orignally used as substitute for others which we were, well, squeamish about, that over time attained the qualities of the original term through repeated use in that context.
‘Tranny’ is not a euphemism for transvestite or transsexual: it’s a simple contraction, that is particularly unhelpful in that it equates the meaning of two very different things. Whether it is offensive depends on context – which I would suggest does make it so – and simply whether transvestite and transsexual individuals find it hurtful.
Not that difficult really – let’s just be nice to people.
Bravo! I am so often infuriated at the attitudes of cis individuals who whine and drag their feet and quickly label the trans community as ‘too sensitive’. People insist it’s too hard to learn and remember the right words, as though pronouns were more important than people, as though they were more entitled to the half-second it would take them to think and make the effort to treat people like people, than trans individuals are entitled to common decency.
That, on the other hand, is the kind of comment which tends at least annoy me. (“infuriate” would be a too strong word.)
Consider that:
o You use a term for non-trans people (“cis”), which most of them would not understand or agree with—and certainly is not something they would typically call themselves. I only understand the meaning through the analogy with the Latin geographic terms. (While being far from certain that this analogy makes sense, seeing that the “trans-” we have here is of a different character than in e.g. “transalpina”.)
This rhymes poorly with your insistance that trans-people should be referred to by the terms they prefer.
o Pronouns are less important than people—and that is exactly why it is wrong to make a storm in a tea-cup when someone is not up-to-date with the latest PC terminology. The words are not important—the intent behind the words is important. (Failure to realize this is, obviously, one of the reasons behind euphemism treadmills.) Knowing the right word does not have anything to do with common decency—having a respectful internal attitude does.
o As for “too sensitive”, etc: Most of us have more-or-less nothing to do with transpeople in daily life (excepting those cases we are not aware of, which are irrelevant for this paragraph) and the most we see is in the form of various political statements and actions—and in these there is a fair amount of whining, unnecessary polarisation, attention grabbing, and similar. It may well be that these methods are used by other groups too; however, at least we encounter most of these groups regularly in daily life and can form a better opinion.
My recommendation:
Apply Hanlon’s Razor instead of assuming ill intent. Again: The words are not important—the intents are.